Sunday, 9 January 2011

As mentioned, I've been busy elsewhere so am rather late, but I really can't let this staggeringly dismissive irresponsibility - from someone entrusted to be spotlessly responsible - pass without comment.

Anne-Marie Carroll, 45, who is a member of the Bradford Catholic Players, was on her way to the group’s rehearsal rooms in Rebecca Street, driving alone in a company car, which was noted by officers investigating kerb crawling.

A letter was then sent by the Bradford District Vice Team to the Carroll Cleaning Company in Halifax, where she works as a sales director.

Her twin brother, Nicholas, the company’s managing director, opened the letter, which said the details of the circumstances in which Miss Carroll was seen would be kept on record unless she objected, and that she should speak to officers so they could confirm she had not committed an offence.

Now, I'll address the obvious contrarian arguments first.

Yes, this was an area where crimes were known to have been committed. Yes, the police feel that they must tackle what they see as the fuelling of prostitution in the locality - that being kerb-crawling - and that this is an effective approach.

But ... once any such measures threaten the lives and liberties of innocent people they have moved into quite unacceptable territory.

Don't answer back, I'm in a mood. Yes, they fucking have.

Consider this shockingly arrogant reponse to criticism from the disgusting uniformed arroganza in charge of the whole appallingly anti-social mess.

Supt [Angela] Williams said: “We make no apology for the robust way in that we tackle the issue of kerb crawling in Bradford.

Err, love, you've just sent an accusation of sexual criminality to the employer of someone who was merely going about her everyday life as an amateur dramatist. You have accused her of being a pervert. You didn't use common sense or discretion, instead you found it acceptable to employ deliberately intimidatory bullying.

She was innocent.

Apologise, bitch!

“This particular tactic to target the men who solicit women has been used for a number of years in the city and with notable success. The letters are sent out following detailed observations of a vehicle’s movements and the registered owner is contacted whether it is an individual or a business."

Firstly, if your goal is to target men, you have fucked up big time, haven't you? Apologise, bitch.

Secondly, they can't be 'detailed observations' if they didn't ascertain that your targeting 'men' turns up a fucking woman driving her vehicle to a perfectly innocent night out.

Thirdly, and very much most importantly, why the fucking hell are you sending letters to businesses, let alone individuals, without establishing guilt first?

“In circumstances where the drivers are found to have legitimate reason for their activity, they are immediately removed from our records.”

No, no, no, and again, fucking no. It is not the driver's responsibility to confirm their innocence to you. It is up to you to establish their guilt.

That is what 'innocent until proven guilty' is all about. Understand? In fact, it's what policing is all about.

Now, love, let's see how many Peelian Principles you have just contravened. Out of 9, I make it you have buggered up numbers 2,3,4,5,7,8, and possibly 9.

Of course, this is just touching on a much larger, hidden, damage that you may be causing. Sorry, scratch that ... that you have undoubtedly already caused.

... deputy head, John Pinnington, who was fired from his job when an enhanced criminal record background (CRB) check turned up allegations of abuse made against him. He took his case to judicial review, arguing that the allegations were seriously flawed, were unsubstantiated, and that the police should only include them in a CRB check where there were some grounds to believe they might be true.

This view was rejected, as Lord Justice Richards ruled that there was nothing unlawful about the actions of the Police force in passing on allegations. And future employers "should be aware" of the accusations, however weak and unreliable they are.

It's OK to say that the record will be expunged if they contact you and tell you that they were just popping down to their am-dram night as usual, but it shouldn't be up to them to do anything of the sort. We live in a society which has held the premise of 'innocent until proven guilty' very close to our hearts and for a very good reason.

It's so that the public's lives can't be unfairly destroyed due to malicious, and unfounded, accusations from lazy police forces run by ignorant fucknuts like you, Angela. There is no way that these accusation will not turn up on CRB records the next time one of Angela's victims applies for clearance. As the judgement stated quite clearly, the police will leave it up to employers to decide.

And in our current hideously litigious times, this will lead to people being denied employment for no better reason except that cunts like Angela won't fucking apologise.

Of course, if Angela really wanted to eradicate - or massively reduce - kerb-crawling, she could campaign for the legalisation of brothels which would knock the problem on the head at a stroke.

You're chasing the wrong criminals, love, try sending some coppers to SW1 and you won't have to harrass innocent people anymore.

It would be awful if others - who have had a similar experience courtesy of the flawed judgement of Supt Williams - should get it into their heads that a group action might be a good idea. Wouldn't it?

""This view was rejected, as Lord Justice Richards ruled that there was nothing unlawful about the actions of the Police force in passing on allegations. And future employers "should be aware" of the accusations, however weak and unreliable they are.""

The problem that I have is with the words 'allegation' and 'accusation'.

As regards the judge's decision in the specific case before him, was the 'allegation' a technical term meaning an actual matter which went to court, or was it just an 'accusation'? The two things are quite different. I would have thought that an 'allegation' would be something 'alleged' ie a statement from the public prosecutor, whereas an 'accusation' could be by anyone. Or should it be the other way round? This part of the problem, is it not? We do not know the precise meaning of legal terms.

However, you are totally correct in your opinion that there is no way in which the police should be reporting to employers where their company cars happen to be situated at any particular time. It is the equivalent of the police sending my wife a letter saying that my car had been spotted parked in Manchester United car park. If they can do that, they can also write to her and tell her that I was spotted (revealed on a cctv camera) entering a brothel. The importance of this is that the police should not be interfering in 'private' matters since their interference can have unintended consequences. The fact that this un-legal activity has been successful in cutting down kerb crawling is irrelevant. One might just as well say that arresting anyone who enters such an area has cut down on kerb crawling.

The point is, how on earth did they get away with it on the very first occasion on which they reported such a thing to the very first employer? Why didn't the very first employer raise merry hell about the police reporting this thing to them? On the grounds that a potentially very damaging and expensive matter of employment law has now been created? For example, an employer could say that he does not lay down PRECISE rules regarding the use of the company car. He would not want to rule that an employee must follow a specific path to get from A to B, and cannot deviate from that path in order to call on his parents and say hello in his lunch break.

I have no doubt that this lady will complain and will be fobbed off with an offer of some paltry sum in compensation - but that should not do. ALL employers should be interested in this matter and should club together to take this matter all the way to the courts. These sort of police actions MUST BE STOPPED.

All these actions, including the smoking ban, climategate, alcohol action, etc are all linked. They are all linked by the little word: PROPAGANDA. That is, it is worth the little cost of compensation to get the publicity out that company car locations in these areas are being reported to employers (and, by implication, private cars can be similarly reported).

Why is it taking so long for the people to realise that, sooner or later, they too will be caught up in this scam?

And, even more importantly,why is corrective action not being taken by our politicians, and being seen to be taken by our politicians? BEING SEEN TO BE TAKEN!!!!

This question of employers acting together reminds me of the bragging claim that ASH made that they had written to all employers telling them that the harm of SHS was a fact and that they would be responsible for workplace harm resulting from SHS and that the letter that ASH sent would ensure that employers had no excuse. Why didn't employers get together and say to the Gov: "Up with this we will not put. Tell us PRECISELY, Mr Gov, what harm SHS does? Tell us how we can know which of our employees are at risk. We cannot operate our businesses on the vague possibility that..."

Maybe Tobacco Control should be allowed to continue with the oppression until they take that step too far. They will do, because of their arrogance.

We people who enjoy tobacco must continue to insist that we are NOT murderers and are NOT harming children. If only I was rich! If I was, I would take these people who say that I am harming children by smoking to court for slander. But there is a problem, which is that there needs to be actual harm. But harm could be shown to exist if a grandparent could show that their contact with their grandchildren had been withdrawn by the parents (their own children) because the grandparents smoke and are perceived to be harming the grandchildren.

Sometimes I despair. If I were rich I would do it. But I am not. Is there not one single rich person in this country with the guts to take on ASH and co?

Unfortunately, the public having a contrary opinion or being disaffected by anything that our Lords and Masters do or say is only considered further evidence that the public need to be nudged a little harder. Politicians are infallible, if the public don't understand they need to have their thoughts moderated.

Propaganda is what nudge is all about anyway, it's essentially the use of lies to steer individuals in a given direction for any number of reasons.

People are kept so busy and have every reason to not get noticed, so long as they aren't directly targeted. Speaking up makes one a target. If they can be convinced that they are harmed by the target or already have an unfavorable view of the target they may even be nudged into joining in and bullying the target. It works. That's why so many awful things are happening with so little pushback. It's tragic and will take a mountain more before rumblings become audible. Human nature is used against the public all the time.

It may seem pointless to bring up and discuss each outrage as nothing gets done, but people read and not all of them comment, subversively the truth organically spreads, but ever so slowly and it's up against broadly disseminated propaganda.

So, preaching to the choir or not, it must be done.

And I suspect anonymous understands my question. It was rhetorical. ;-)

Isn't this something to do with bringing our law model in line with the EU one?

Ours has evolved from the old Anglo-Saxon 'bottom up' law codes which favour the individual, (who is 'innocent until proven guilty'), whereas the European system has evolved from Roman or Justinian 'top down' principles which tend to favour the authorities.

This article - http://www.habeascorpus.net/asp/ - explains it in a bit more detail, although it's specifically about Habeas Corpus, another uniquely English concept.

And this comes from the same Bradford police force which today has claimed that there is no local problem with Asian youths grooming under-age white girls for sexual purposes - in BRADFORD for Allah's sake ! That's where the whole Share-The-Young-White-Slappers game was invented, but the local Plod are so shit-scared of the ethnics that they are even prepared to lie in public. All the local folk know it's happening but Chicken Plod just operates multi-culti denial yet again.

They dare not even concentrate their ANPR cameras in the two main ethnic postcodes (BD3 & BD8), where it is proved from DVLA and Insurers' records that half the cars are uninsured - instead they prowl the leafy, middle-class, white suburbs stopping the more compliant, uncomplaining white-folk and fining then for having a bit of snow on their car roofs. And then they're surprised when there's a backlash !

And what would have happened if they'd accidently caught Supt. Williams? A riposte along the lines of, "you fuckwits, I'm a woman!" I imagine.

One can only hope that Lord Justice Richards drives too slowly through Bradford as well, then he might have cause to ponder his remark about the force of allegations, "however weak and unreliable they are".

recently i have problem which is usual of many of us ! what to do and how to go on living, I cant understand ((I have stopped smiling at ALL!!!! :( yes!!,i have bad teeth because of heredity ... why it so? Teeth is the first thing you see when chat somebody,or doing smth like this, I found a solution in putting lumineers ! and i need to say it has 100%result!!,also i think its a good investition